May ready for tough talks over Brexit

[rockingrobin]

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Not irrational - you need to read back through the string to get the context entirely.

Any of this does not prevent future parliaments revoking the 1972 act, quite the opposite really.

So if parliament can revoke, how is not soveriegn.

The Conservative government at the time was elected on a manifesto of joining the EEC

[pitrevie]

7 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

Intriguing. So you are saying there needs to be either a general election or referendum held to approve the deal that David Davis comes to with the EU.

Heath clearly had an intention to join the EEC if the terms were right since it was included in his 1970 manifesto. If you are arguing that there was a constitutional requirement that those terms needed the approval of the electorate after negotiation then we could be in for an interesting time.




Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

4 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The argument is irrational

How did parliament passing the EEC act , prevent future parliaments revoking the act

Exactly as far back as the 17th century it was established that Parliament was supreme. 

 

"Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law."

 

Developments affecting Parliamentary sovereignty

Over the years, Parliament has passed laws that limit the application of parliamentary sovereignty. These laws reflect political developments both within and outside the UK.
They include:
The devolution of power to bodies like the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.
The Human Rights Act 1998.
The UK's entry to the European Union in 1973.
The decision to establish a UK Supreme Court in 2009, which ends the House of Lords function as the UK's final court of appeal.
These developments do not fundamentally undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, since, in theory at least, Parliament could repeal any of the laws implementing these changes.

 

That is an excerpt from the House of Commons website, but hell what do they know about it compared to the members on this forum?

 

Magna Carta, a document agreed between some fruitcake who thought he was divinely chosen and the Barons and their cronies. Absolutely nothing to do with the vast majority of bloody peasants and even less about voting rights.

[nauseus]

18 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

Intriguing. So you are saying there needs to be either a general election or referendum held to approve the deal that David Davis comes to with the EU.

Heath clearly had an intention to join the EEC if the terms were right since it was included in his 1970 manifesto. If you are arguing that there was a constitutional requirement that those terms needed the approval of the electorate after negotiation then we could be in for an interesting time.




Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

Nothing to do with Davis or any deal now. I was referring to the passing of the European Communities Act of 1972. Yes it was Heath's intent but he concealed the truth about the consequences to sovereignty by joining the EEC. The point is that there was no direct consultation of the electorate (according to constitutional convention) to explain the effects on sovereignty, properly and truthfully, before Heath signed us in. If he had we would have not gone in in the first place! 

[nauseus]

31 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The Magna Carter for constitutional purposes an historical orniment, a piece of history displaying the change of supremacy from the King to parliament.

Magna Carter was an agreement between the King , who ruled at that time, and the Barons , which limited the kings ability to do whatever they liked.

 

The Bill of Rights placed firmly that Parliament was supreme

Parliament does not have the right to change the whole nature of Britain's constitution - sovereign power ultimately lies with the electorate. Before the 1970 general election, even Heath declared that it would be wrong to join the EEC without `the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people'. Of course he reneged on that too!

Edited August 30, 2017 by nauseus

[Orac]

Nothing to do with Davis or any deal now. I was referring to the passing of the European Communities Act of 1972. Yes it was Heath's intent but he concealed the truth about the consequences to sovereignty by joining the EEC. The point is that there was no direct consultation of the electorate (according to constitutional convention) to explain the effects on sovereignty, properly and truthfully, before Heath signed us in. If he had we would have not gone in in the first place! 

Surely this argument, ridiculous though it is when made in the context of the current situation, would have been put to bed by the 1975 referendum though.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[rockingrobin]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Parliament does not have the right to change the whole nature of Britain's constitution - sovereign power ultimately lies with the electorate. Before the 1970 general election, even Heath declared that it would be wrong to join the EEC without `the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people'. Of course he reneged on that too!

Parliament didnt.

The people did that when the Bill of Rights was passed and consigned the Magna Carter to history

[pitrevie]

1 minute ago, Orac said:

 

Surely this argument, ridiculous though it is when made in the context of the current situation, would have been put to bed by the 1975 referendum though.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

The EEC debate was over 6 days in Parliament, sovereignty was the main topic of that debate, it was the main talking point of Powell. Following that six days of debate Parliament gave its approval. We have a representative democracy that is how our system works no requirement whatsoever to have a referendum, there is no such law. In fact to have a referendum requires that Parliament approves it.

[nauseus]

Just now, Orac said:

 

Surely this argument, ridiculous though it is when made in the context of the current situation, would have been put to bed by the 1975 referendum though.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

No, because the Wilson government continued the lie and the referendum question was: "do you want to stay in?". This can also be argued to be void because, constitutionally (legally) we were never in, in the first place. I any event, Heath's deception was enough to make the signing of the Treaty in 1973 illegal.   

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, pitrevie said:

The EEC debate was over 6 days in Parliament, sovereignty was the main topic of that debate, it was the main talking point of Powell. Following that six days of debate Parliament gave its approval. We have a representative democracy that is how our system works no requirement whatsoever to have a referendum, there is no such law. In fact to have a referendum requires that Parliament approves it.

Yes, they have to approve it but a referendum was still required.

I don't think anyone was listening to Powell in the early 70's after the "Rivers" speech.

[rockingrobin]

9 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Parliament does not have the right to change the whole nature of Britain's constitution - sovereign power ultimately lies with the electorate. Before the 1970 general election, even Heath declared that it would be wrong to join the EEC without `the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people'. Of course he reneged on that too!

Sovereignty does not sit with the people, 

The coronation Oath Act 1688 , following the great revolution clearly puts sovereignty with parliament

[rockingrobin]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Yes, they have to approve it but a referendum was still required.

I don't think anyone was listening to Powell in the early 70's after the "Rivers" speech.

If I was to follow your logic , the UK membership of the likes of , NATO, WTO, WHO, BIS are all unlawfull because no referendum took place prior to the UK joining

[pitrevie]

2 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Sovereignty does not sit with the people, 

The coronation Oath Act 1688 , following the great revolution clearly puts sovereignty with parliament

Quite right, the excerpt I just posted clearly states that. Something that Brexiters just cannot accept, the UK Parliament is supreme. 

[nauseus]

5 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

If I was to follow your logic , the UK membership of the likes of , NATO, WTO, WHO, BIS are all unlawfull because no referendum took place prior to the UK joining

They do not involve sovereignty.

[pitrevie]

14 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

If I was to follow your logic , the UK membership of the likes of , NATO, WTO, WHO, BIS are all unlawfull because no referendum took place prior to the UK joining

Nor was there any UK referendum when the UK Parliament ceded some sovereignty to the Welsh assembly and the Scottish Parliament. 

[nauseus]

4 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

Nor was there any UK referendum when the UK Parliament ceded some sovereignty to the Welsh assembly and the Scottish Parliament. 

They are part of Britain.

[nauseus]

23 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

Sovereignty does not sit with the people, 

The coronation Oath Act 1688 , following the great revolution clearly puts sovereignty with parliament

The Declaration of Right, and the Bill of Rights, clearly state that - no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.

 

So it can clearly be seen that every EU treaty imposed upon us by Parliament, is unconstitutional. 

[rockingrobin]

13 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The Declaration of Right, and the Bill of Rights, clearly state that - no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.

 

So it can clearly be seen that every EU treaty imposed upon us by Parliament, is unconstitutional. 

The power remains with the UK parliament, it can revoke any such external powers

[rockingrobin]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

They do not involve sovereignty.

How do they not concede sovereignty, From NATO.  If another NATO country is attacked , all other member countries are obliged to defend.

[nontabury]

18 hours ago, SheungWan said:

A 9 bob note would be a 45 pence note. Can any Brexiteers count?

Better than your ex G/F.

[nauseus]

44 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The power remains with the UK parliament, it can revoke any such external powers

Yes, they can revoke the 1972 ECA! 

[nauseus]

42 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

How do they not concede sovereignty,

From NATO

if another NATO country is attacked , all other member countries are obliged to defend

A treaty as an agreement for mutual defence - no sovereignty issue.

[rockingrobin]

40 minutes ago, nauseus said:

A treaty as an agreement for mutual defence - no sovereignty issue.

So you will be advocating the abolishment of the 1952 visiting forces act that allow US forces personnal to present certificate of immunity to British courts

 

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1983/dec/19/visiting-forces-act-1952

Edited August 30, 2017 by rockingrobin

[AlexRich]

3 hours ago, Orac said:

 

Intriguing. So you are saying there needs to be either a general election or referendum held to approve the deal that David Davis comes to with the EU.

Heath clearly had an intention to join the EEC if the terms were right since it was included in his 1970 manifesto. If you are arguing that there was a constitutional requirement that those terms needed the approval of the electorate after negotiation then we could be in for an interesting time.




Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

I'd agree to that ... a referendum on the terms. This is what Brexit actually is ... stay or go. The "will of the people" based on the facts. That will end the debate.

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

The Declaration of Right, and the Bill of Rights, clearly state that - no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.

 

So it can clearly be seen that every EU treaty imposed upon us by Parliament, is unconstitutional. 

I guess you and your merry men better overthrow Parliament then. So, chums Parliament is now added to the list of Enemies of The People: the High Courts, The Supreme Court and now the cherry on the cake the UK Parliament. Anyone for Royal Prerogative? And who/how is this going to be imposed? Well hello National Revolution! Told you so. Conspiracy Nutters here we go!

[AlexRich]

1 minute ago, SheungWan said:

I guess you and your merry men better overthrow Parliament then. So, chums Parliament is now added to the list of Enemies of The People: the High Courts, The Supreme Court and now the cherry on the cake the UK Parliament. Anyone for Royal Prerogative? And who/how is this going to be imposed? Well hello National Revolution! Told you so. Conspiracy Nutters here we go!

Looks like children in the future will be celebrating the "Geriatric Gunpowder Plot", an attempt to blow up parliament for failing the Empire. "Penny for the Hahn, governor!"

[nauseus]

43 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

So you will be advocating the abolishment of the 1952 visiting forces act that allow US forces personnal to present certificate of immunity to British courts

 

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1983/dec/19/visiting-forces-act-1952

No - that's nothing to do with British national sovereignty.

[nauseus]

17 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

I guess you and your merry men better overthrow Parliament then. So, chums Parliament is now added to the list of Enemies of The People: the High Courts, The Supreme Court and now the cherry on the cake the UK Parliament. Anyone for Royal Prerogative? And who/how is this going to be imposed? Well hello National Revolution! Told you so. Conspiracy Nutters here we go!

Your words. No mine. No overthrow. No band of merry men. MP's can be voted out at elections - a parliament with the will to do it can revoke the ECA of 1972. As we can see this all takes a lot of time.

[nauseus]

27 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

I'd agree to that ... a referendum on the terms. This is what Brexit actually is ... stay or go. The "will of the people" based on the facts. That will end the debate.

Twisting again for your own purposes. The previous posts refer to entry not exit.

[nontabury]

7 hours ago, pitrevie said:

Perhaps you could give a link to the Statute that supports that statement.

 

Heath received Parliamentary approval for the UK's accession to the EEC all quite legal and above board.

Do you think that the British people would have agreed in 1973, or at the time of the 1975 referendum to join a union which was not only a trading Union, but also a political Union, and that would have entailed loss of national sovereignty.

Edited August 30, 2017 by nontabury

[pitrevie]

2 minutes ago, nontabury said:

Do you think that the British people would have agreed in 1973, or at the time of the 1975 referendum to join a union which was not only a trading Union, but also a political Union, and that would have entailed loss of national sovereignty.

Judging by the result of the referendum, yes.

Once again the nonsense about National Sovereignty. Yet in 2016 the British people were able to revoke the decision they made earlier. If we were no longer sovereign, if Parliament was no longer supreme then how did it manege that?